Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Congreve v Secretary of State: Abuse of Power & Unlawful TV Licence Demands, Lecture notes of Law

The legal case of congreve v secretary of state for the home office, decided in 2016. The case revolves around the appellant's challenge to the home office's demand for additional television licence fees, which had already been paid before the fee increase. The court ruled that the minister's attempt to revoke validly issued licences and demand extra fees was an abuse of discretionary power and an unlawful demand, as it went against the policy of the legislation and the bill of rights 1688. The document also includes references to related cases and statutes.

What you will learn

  • How did the Bill of Rights 1688 impact the court's decision in Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office?

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

fuller
fuller 🇬🇧

4.8

(6)

241 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Congreve v Secretary of State for the
Home Office: CA 1976
August 22, 2016
References: [1976] 1 QB 629, [1976] 1 All ER 697, [1977] 2 WLR 291
Coram: Geoffrey Lane LJ, Lord Denning MR
Ratio: The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was £12 although the
minister had already announced that it would later be increased to £18. The Home Office wrote
to those who had purchased their licence before the new charge came into effect demanding the
payment of the extra £6 failing which their licence would be revoked.
Held: It was an abuse of the Minister’s undoubted discretionary power to revoke TV licences for
him to seek to revoke a validly issued licence as a means of levying money which Parliament
had given the executive no power to demand. The courts will rule invalidate the exercise of a
discretion which contains no express limitations in such a way as to run counter to the policy of
the legislation by which it was conferred.
Geoffrey Lane LJ: ‘the proposed revocation . . is illegal for two reasons. First, it is coupled with
an illegal demand which taints the revocation and makes that illegal too. Secondly, or possibly
putting the same matter in a different way, it is an improper exercise of a discretionary power to
use a threat to exercise that power as a means of extracting money which Parliament has given
the executive no mandate to demand: see Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd (1921) 37
TLR 884.’
Lord Denning MR: ‘There is another reason for holding that the demands for £6 to be unlawful.
They were made contrary to the Bill of Rights. They were an attempt to levy money for use of the
Crown without the authority of Parliament: and that is quite enough to damn them.’
and ‘If the licence is to be revoked and his money forfeited the Minister would have to give
good reasons to justify it.
Of course, if the licensee had done anything wrong if he had given a cheque for £12 which was
dishonoured, or if he had broken the conditions of the licence the Minister could revoke it. But
when the licensee has done nothing wrong at all, I do not think the Minister can lawfully revoke
the licence, at any rate, not without offering him his money back, and not even then except for
good cause. If he should revoke it without giving reasons, or for no good reason, the courts can
set aside his revocation and restore the licence. It would be a misuse of the power conferred on
him by Parliament: and these courts have the authority and, I would add, the duty to correct a
misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn
us of the consequences if we do.’
Statutes: Bill of Rights 1688 4
This case is cited by:
Cited Regina v Braintree District Council ex parte Halls Admn (Times 21-Jul-99, Bailii,
[1999] EWHC Admin 626)
Where a local authority had sold a property to a tenant, and the tenant later came back to
request the release from one of the covenants given on the sale, the council was free to
charge an appropriate sum for that release. It was not a covenant . .
Cited Total Network Sl v Customs & Excise Commissioners CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ
39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156)
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that
there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged
is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Cited Wheeler v Leicester City Council; In re Wheeler and others HL (Bailii, [1985] UKHL
6, [1985] AC 1054, [1985] 3 WLR 335, [1985] 2 All ER 151)
The Council opposed sporting links with South Africa. The local rugby club failed to
denounce apartheid and did not seek to dissuade three of its players touring with the
national side. The Court of Appeal had refused judicial review of the . .
EXD/021B
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Congreve v Secretary of State: Abuse of Power & Unlawful TV Licence Demands and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Congreve v Secretary of State for the

Home Office: CA 1976

Au gu st 22, 2016

References: [1976] 1 QB 629, [1976] 1 All ER 697, [1977] 2 WLR 291 Coram: Geoffrey Lane LJ, Lord Denning MR Ratio: The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was £12 although the minister had already announced that it would later be increased to £18. The Home Office wrote to those who had purchased their licence before the new charge came into effect demanding the payment of the extra £6 failing which their licence would be revoked. Held: It was an abuse of the Minister’s undoubted discretionary power to revoke TV licences for him to seek to revoke a validly issued licence as a means of levying money which Parliament had given the executive no power to demand. The courts will rule invalidate the exercise of a discretion which contains no express limitations in such a way as to run counter to the policy of the legislation by which it was conferred. Geoffrey Lane LJ: ‘the proposed revocation.. is illegal for two reasons. First, it is coupled with an illegal demand which taints the revocation and makes that illegal too. Secondly, or possibly putting the same matter in a different way, it is an improper exercise of a discretionary power to use a threat to exercise that power as a means of extracting money which Parliament has given the executive no mandate to demand: see Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd (1921) 37 TLR 884.’ Lord Denning MR: ‘There is another reason for holding that the demands for £6 to be unlawful. They were made contrary to the Bill of Rights. They were an attempt to levy money for use of the Crown without the authority of Parliament: and that is quite enough to damn them.’ and ‘If the licence is to be revoked – and his money forfeited – the Minister would have to give good reasons to justify it. Of course, if the licensee had done anything wrong – if he had given a cheque for £12 which was dishonoured, or if he had broken the conditions of the licence – the Minister could revoke it. But when the licensee has done nothing wrong at all, I do not think the Minister can lawfully revoke the licence, at any rate, not without offering him his money back, and not even then except for good cause. If he should revoke it without giving reasons, or for no good reason, the courts can set aside his revocation and restore the licence. It would be a misuse of the power conferred on him by Parliament: and these courts have the authority – and, I would add, the duty – to correct a misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn us of the consequences if we do.’ Statutes: Bill of Rights 1688 4 This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Braintree District Council ex parte Halls Admn (Times 21-Jul-99, Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 626) Where a local authority had sold a property to a tenant, and the tenant later came back to request the release from one of the covenants given on the sale, the council was free to charge an appropriate sum for that release. It was not a covenant..
  • Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs & Excise Commissioners CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156) The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants..
  • Cited – Wheeler v Leicester City Council; In re Wheeler and others HL (Bailii, [1985] UKHL 6, [1985] AC 1054, [1985] 3 WLR 335, [1985] 2 All ER 151) The Council opposed sporting links with South Africa. The local rugby club failed to denounce apartheid and did not seek to dissuade three of its players touring with the national side. The Court of Appeal had refused judicial review of the..

EXD/021B

  • Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Another Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin)) The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the..
  • Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Another Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin)) The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the..

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22-Aug- Ref: 197886

http://swarb.co.uk/congreve-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-office-ca-1976/